Transformative change could be a few heartbeats away, as long as the will exists. Judges and courts could manage their parenting, property and money dispute cases in a fresh way, using their existing powers to better effect, whilst seriously protecting the families' right to a private life. A novel approach to writing a verdict is one thing: but it's time for judges to use their imaginations in a completely different way.

When my ex-partner tried to murder me by putting a gun to my head, I was at the top of my game. I had reached a point with my PR companies where I was the go-to for giving voice to the voiceless; I was winning awards for making waves in marketing and diversity. Yes, I consider myself to be an intelligent woman. I also had a vast circle of friends and colleagues and a close-knit family. My greatest obstacle to freedom was my own overbearing feeling of shame.

Fresh from seeing the UK's Supreme Court thrust into the limelight when deciding on the recent Article 50 case, we are now seeing the USA grapple with the separation of powers under its own constitution... Until recent times it seemed unlikely that lawyers on either side of the Atlantic would find it necessary defend the Rule of Law at home. But it may be a mistake for us to fail, for the present and perhaps for a little time to come, to concentrate upon this task.

Why are populist politicians popular today? Because they give people a chance to blame someone else for their problems. The others. The foreigners. The aliens. The people who don't belong to OUR country. If populists are such con artists, why do people fall for them?

In this case, it seems the judiciary went too far. It is surely questionable to factor into sentencing a febrile public mood, particularly when it is stoked by politicians and commentators peddling emotive and unscientific ideas about human behaviour.

To me, it seems the major distinction in the judge Vs jury debate is this: Judges have to answer to people, their profession and the media. Those on jury service have only to answer to their own consciences. Which is better? I have no idea. But it seemed like a fitting time to ask the question.

The aggressive questioning of vulnerable witnesses in court was exposed again this week with solicitor general Oliver Heald calling for change at the dispatch box. We've all heard stories of children - many of them victims of horrific sex crimes - being thrown to the wolves in court and it needs to stop.

As a child growing up in my grandmother's house in Liverpool, there was one name that always made my grandmother excited: Rose Heilbron. Rose was an advocate, and when she was arguing a case before a jury at the Liverpool Assizes my grandmother would follow her cases avidly, sometimes even from the public gallery.

Why isn't Lord Justice Leveson holding a Public Inquiry into Hillsborough? After all, it involves the press, the police, a blatant cover-up lasting years, politicians and the establishment actively assisting that cover-up, judges going along with the concealment of the truth, taxpayer funded public services lying, distorting and doctoring evidence...

Establishing judicial studies as a respectable and rigorous academic field could not only increase public understanding and interest in the judiciary, but it could also serve to improve the quality and openness of our legal system.

I wasn't surprised when I took a look at the government's new e-petition website to see the number of petitions to do with the justice system, crime and punishment.
From the death penalty, to who decides sentences, the breadth and volume of petitions shows just what an emotive subject our criminal justice system can be.